logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2013.10.17 2013노36 (1)
경범죄처벌법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error-misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is public waters, and the right to manage them is the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Governor. According to Article 41 of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act, even if the Navy Chief of Staff has obtained a reclamation license on the coast, he/she shall obtain consent from the manager to enter public waters. The Navy cannot be deemed to have obtained the management right on the coast of L, and since there is no legal basis for installing a pent, the coast of L does not fall under the “area, facility or place where entry is prohibited” as provided by Article 1 subparag. 49 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (hereinafter “the place where entry is prohibited”).

Furthermore, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act, not with the intent to interfere with the construction, but with illegal removal, or entering the Lshore to give legal advice to the demonstrationers.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Even if the judgment of the court below (100,000 won) is found guilty against the defendant, the court below's sentencing (100,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative purpose, form, etc. of the former Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (amended by Act No. 11401, Mar. 21, 2012), the term “area, facility, or place where access is prohibited by administrative disposition, etc.” under Article 1 subparag. 49 of the said Act should be construed as including not only the place where access is prohibited by administrative disposition, etc., but also the land, etc. where the owner or legitimate occupant, etc. of the land, etc. has affixed a mark, such as prohibition of access, for the purpose of preventing access to the land, etc.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the "Lshore" of this case is the naval Chief of Staff on March 3, 2010.

arrow